Winning GOTM8 by 2640 BC

[Jonathan]

Well, if Alain is disqualified, that seems to leave Cactus Pete with the green star.

I've had a look at his game, and although his strategy seems to have points of similarity with Alain's (for instance, the reliance on religous technology for attack units), he's built cities much more enthusiastically, and instead of staying in Despotism he's gone through Monarchy to Republic.

In the past I've found that going to Republic early seemed to slow me down, but perhaps this was because I didn't handle it correctly. Or perhaps playing at Warlord level makes a crucial difference.

I wonder whether he went to Republic as a sort of gesture when the game was almost won, or if it was a key part of his strategy and took place earlier. I don't think I can tell from looking at the saved game.

In such a short game, it seems a pity to have to go through two periods of anarchy. But I presume he spent a while in Monarchy because he took the trouble to research it.

 

[Cactus Pete]

Jonathan,

Going to Republic was not a gesture at the game's end. I usually switch to it soon after I obtain the advance, even in Diety.

I prepare for the switch to Republic from early in any game by not building more than one military unit in each city (sometimes with the exception of a single ideal city that has sufficient food to allow at least one entertainer and sufficient shields to support multiple veteran {I build a barracks only there} elephants or crusaders). I also generally only grow cities under monarchy to a population of three, building settlers after that, and waiting for republic to go to four or more citizens.

I sometimes am able to use the single turn of anarchy between monarchy and republic to conquer one or two civilizations. (One-turn conquest of multiple cities requires patient advance planning also.) Then I use Republic and WLTK days to quickly grow my cities and become a much more productive, well funded, overpowering civilization, which is the key to early conquest.

starlifter,

I agree with you that first person comments on better games make the GOTM more interesting, so I've made the above contribution. BTW. . . Thanks for your support.

 

[el_kalkylus]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I wonder whether he went to Republic as a sort of gesture when the game was almost won, or if it was a key part of his strategy and took place earlier. I don't think I can tell from looking at the saved game.

I think he went into Republic just in the end to get more happy citizens, thus get higher score. But since he just found the last civilizations settler (which hadn't founded a new city), he must have gone into Republic a little earlier.

This makes me also curious.

 

[Jonathan]

Thanks to Cactus Pete for the interesting comments.

Republic has three serious disadvantages: it reduces happiness (thereby forcing you to divert research and production towards happiness Wonders), it reduces production (fewer shields), and it inhibits city building because settlers take more food.

It gives a boost to trade; but in the past I've found this advantage insufficient compared with the above disadvantages, so I normally go directly from Monarchy to Communism via the Statue of Liberty.

It seems that where I've been going wrong is in not making full use of WLTK days. I know about them, but I haven't acquired skill in making best use of them. (And now I hear that Civ 3 won't have them...)

If going to Republic is worth doing, it requires only 4 advances (Monarchy requires 3). Thus, it would be possible to skip Monarchy and go to Republic almost as quickly. Is a period of Monarchy still worthwhile? If so, how long a period?

Sigh. I've been playing Civ 2 since it came out, and Civ 1 before that. I should have answered these questions for myself by now, except that I got discouraged with Republic and gave up using it...

 

[Jonathan]

Oops, I see from the InfoCenter that WLTK day is still in Civ 3.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the instant population growth possible with WLTK in Civ 2 won't be available in Civ 3. But I can't find my source of that information now.

 

[Marik2000]

maybee this will making the AI more challenging... this is the only thing I hope what will aplied in civ3

 

[Cactus Pete]

Jonathan,

Republic does not increase unhappiness unless you have more than one military unit outside a city (and not in a fortress). The cost in shields of supporting units is usually more than offset by adding citizens with WLTKD. The extra food cost for settlers is a relatively minor drawback compared to the increase in trade and the opportunity to instantly grow your cities with WLTKD.

Frankly, I've never even considered skipping monarchy. I doubt that it would be the optimal approach -- despotism holds you back big time. Perhaps some other fanatic will reply to that.

On rereading my own post above, I realize that I was misleading regarding one-turn entire-civilization conquests during anarchy. I am often able to do that after I have gone to republic (switching to anarchy at the beginning of a turn, conquering during the turn, and switching back to republic at the beginning of the next turn -- thereby avoiding the frustrations of dealing with a lilly-livered senate), but it would be rare to need to do this just as I switch from monarchy to anarchy. What I inadvertantly edited out of my original post was a comment to the effect that even in monarchy I avoid being at war until (as Colin Powell advocates) I have the overwhelming force to finish it in a minimal number of turns and with minimal risk of encountering the law of unintended consequences. I've found it inefficient to conquer civilizations city by city.

 

[Jonathan]

Hello Cactus Pete, thanks again for your interesting comments.

Republic increases unhappiness because it doesn't permit martial law. If you have only one unit in each city, on going from Monarchy to Republic you'll lose just one happiness point per city, which you may not have noticed.

However, in the past I've often kept three units in each city to take full advantage of martial law (and to defend my cities...), so going to Republic costs me three happiness points in each city, and I tend to notice that.

The defence aspect may be worth considering. Keeping just one unit in each city, I'd expect you to lose cities occasionally to barbarians, or maybe even to the dimwitted programmed opponents...

On skipping Monarchy and going straight to Republic: yes, Despotism holds you back; but it doesn't take much longer to get to Republic than it does to get to Monarchy (4 advances instead of 3), so you don't have long to wait.

I'm not exactly advocating going straight to Republic, just speculating about it. I haven't tried it.

Thanks for the clarification of how you use anarchy (I hadn't thought of that), and of conquering whole civilizations at once.

 

[Chofritz]

About going straight to republic.

I always go straight republic on the first 4 levels. However on emperor and diety I don't switch to republic until I have the hanging gardens so on these levels monarchy is my first goal.

 

[Jonathan]

Thanks Chofritz, that's interesting to hear.

As an experiment, I restarted GOTM8 and headed straight for Republic. I had my Republic up and running by 3460 BC, so I didn't have to wait too long in Despotism.

 

[Cactus Pete]

Well, I've learned more than I've taught. Straight to republic will be in my battle plan next game, unless it's at emperor or diety.

Jonathan is right, of course, about the lack of martial law in republic. I don't take much advantage of martial law, since my cities rarely get beyond three citizens before I build Hanging Gardens, but that is certainly a limiting feature. Three units in a city, however, is incompatible with very early conquests.

Also, returning to my original post, I did not mention that it is sometimes possible to incite revolt in Republic without risking intercession from your senate. For example, a diplomat on board ship can turn a coastal city without having to deal with an emissary.

 

[Jonathan]

Hello Cactus Pete, you're clearly a much better player than I am, so I'm glad you think you've learned something!

I agree that city garrisons of three units would slow you down, given your speed and style of play. I never tried playing that way before because I wouldn't have guessed it would work.

And, in fact, I think you have to deploy considerable skill to make it work as well as you do.

I mentioned going straight to Republic as a speculation. I still think that Monarchy has its advantages, especially in the early stages when you want to build a lot of cities and improve a lot of terrain, and the one-food settlers under Monarchy make this easier. But, as you like Republic and feel so comfortable with it, perhaps going straight to it might be worth trying.